DAVID JORDAN E PHE SI A G RAM M AT A

AT

H I M E RA

aus: Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130 (2000) 104107

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

104

E PHE SI A G RAM M AT A

AT

H I M E RA

In memory of William Brashear Volvala barchin heman la lavolvola dramme pagloni Anemolius (Gladly I share what is mine, not ungladly accept what is better.)

Shortly after I submitted to the editors the manuscript of the preceding article,1 Jaime Curbera, now preparing a new bibliography of the lead defixiones of Sicily, brought to my attention what seemed a possible example from Himera, of which M. T. Manni Piraino printed a drawing and a description some years ago.2 I am particularly indebted to Dr. Curbera, for it provides another witness to the pda from Selinous, Phalasarna, and Lokroi Epizephyrioi. I reproduce the drawing and description here:3

Cinque frammenti di una laminetta di piombo molto sottile. Si conserva parte del bordo superiore originario (framm. 12) e del bordo di destra (framm. 1a). La laminetta reca incisa una lunga iscrizione sulla faccia anteriore (A), mentre su quella posteriore (B) corrono poche lettere: apografi, fig. 36, 261 AB. Prima met V sec. Di quello documento debbo forzatamente limitarmi a dare un primo, approssimativo apografo: bench molti segni appaiano abbastanza chiaramente identificabile, non sono riuscita tuttavia a dare un senso compiuto al complesso delliscrizione, che potrebbe anche non essere greca. Nel dubbio mi pare opportuno presentarla senza commento in attesa di ulteriore approfondimento.
1 Three texts from Lokroi Epizephyrioi, ZPE 130 (2000) [this volume] 95103. I would thank Prof. Sir Hugh LloydJones for the interest that he has taken in the verses discussed there and below. 2 M. T. Manni Piraino, Le iscrizioni, in N. Allegro et al., Himera, II. Campagne di scavo 19661973 (Rome 1976) 665 701, esp. 69798. It had escaped my notice when I was preparing my Survey of Greek defixiones not included in the special corpora, GRBS 26 (1985) 15196. 3 In the reproduction below, fr. a has been brought closer to fr. b+c+d+e than in the publication. Dimensions go unrecorded in the description.

Ephesia Grammata at Himera

105

There is a photograph (tav. CXV, n. 10) that also accompanies the announcement, but it serves only to show that the inscription must have been extremely difficult to read. Its text indeed makes no sense until one notices that it is a garbled version of the lines discussed in the preceding article. The inscription itself has obvious mistakes, but is not to be ruled out that, given the poor legibility, there are also some inaccuracies in the drawing. Here I give my transcription of this last, along with a corrected version, marking my changes with double underscoring. I have made no sense of what I transcribe here as lines 2 and 3 of Side b. They are upside down in relation to line 1 and may even not have been intended as part of the same text. Side a: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Side b: 1 2 3 a!kik[at]a!iki u![?`]ia!aeda[c.2]oamol[ o!d[1-2]paeka[`]oenlu[ toidonoateWra[ aliemoaioakt/a o[?`]o `olioa !akta
v[ac.

A !ki k[at]a!{i}ki v[ac.? max. 5] u![k?]i a!a e<n>da[c.2]O mol[gi vac.?] O%D[1-2]PA <k> k[p]o la[nete.] to d no<m>a Tetra[go!,] nemlio<!> kt/. O[?`]O ` l<b>io! i kat d !ke<d>ay<i> ka[t] AMODA[

de!ke ayeka[`]amoda[ ]rrnnei[c.2]fo ] kefa![1-2]```

b1 d = d

!ke<d>ay<i> or !ked<a>y<i>

The inscription with its congeners:

A Himera Selinous Phalasarna Lokroi B Himera Selinous Phalasarna Lokroi C Himera Selinous Phalasarna Lokroi D Himera Selinous Phalasarna Lokroi
6O[?`]O 5nemolio<!> 3O%D[1-2]PA 2[

a1 A !ki
13A!ki 6A!ki

k[at]a!{i}ki kata!ki kata!ki k]ata![ki

2[?]u![k?]i

a!a aa!ia aa!ian a!ian

e<n>da[c.2]O enda!i[an enda!ian enda!ian pr! (??)] n [n

14d

mol[g i vac.?] molgn molgi molg i.

aa!!i kata!ki ?]u!!ki

c.3

A!ki

<k> k k <k>

k[p]o k[pou kpo kpo

la[nete.] lanete.] lanete. <>la[nete. (?)

4to 15ti

d d d ]

no<m>a noma ]noma numa

Tetra[go!.] Tetrago!. Tetrag[o!. Tetrako<! ?>.

aj [a]j c.3

aga bai aga bai ]N

t[i
3

kt/. [k]t. kt. kt.

\ HD[
7!o

c.11

]16te troanar gete

Trag[ u_ Trej <_uu_> Trex _uu_ (plus more?)

ne]17mlio! nemlio! nemlio!]

d noma

AO%

!o d num[a

Ol<b>io!
18Olbio[!]

7i

kat k[a]t k<a>t kat

b 1d

! ke<d>ay<i> !keday[i ![k]edayi !ke4dayi

ka[t] kat kat kat

A MODA[ ma]19jitn majitn maji(?)]dom I I A.

i i i

d d d

Olbio[!] Olbio[!

106

D. Jordan

The dialect of the inscription is West Greek (but a4 no<m>a4 ). Letters are occasionally omitted, some omissions probably explicable as phonetic (e.g. a2 e<n>da [c.2]O , a 3 <k> kpo), others not (e.g. a4 no<m>a, a6 Ol<b>io!). Spelling and letter forms suggest a 5th-century date for the tablet from Himera. They could no doubt as easily belong to the second as to Prof. Manni Pirainos proposed first half of the century, but here I do not insist. In any case, the Carthaginian destruction of the city in 409 (D.S. 13.59 62, Str. 6.272) gives the inscription a secure terminus ante quem. The inscription is not arranged according to metrical stichoi, but between C and D there are three letters that are hard to assign to either verse; they may be lectional notes, as assumed for the AO% of Lokroi 3,5 which may be intended to separate verses. Conceivably the O% of the O%D[1-2]PA of Himera 3, occurring just after verse A, is another such lectional note. The texts begin with what seem to be the so-called Ephesia Grammata,6 which Hesychios (s.v.) reports in the form a!ki kata!ki lij (aij cod.) tetraj damnameneu! aasia. The first literary mention of them is by the comic poet Anaxilas (PCG fr. 18; see notes by Kassel and Austin), c. 350, but we do not know the form in which he knew them. Up to now, the lead tablets from Selinous, Phalasarna, and Lokroi Epizephyrioi, also of the 4th century, have given the first epigraphical attestations, but the tablet from Himera, with its 5th-century date, is earlier. Each of the four inscriptions has its corruptions; the oldest witness is by no means the best, but it allows some observations about the text and raises questions. Editors of the inscription from Phalasarna, for example, have bracketed the second kata!ki of its line 6 as being an inadvertent dittography, but it now apparently finds some support in the [?]u![k?]i of Himera a1 and the ?]u!!ki of Lokroi 2. In fact, with the second kata!ki (read katuski?) retained, the line from Phalasarna could, without much forcing, be read as a hexameter. After the word Tetrako<!?> of B the Lokrian text has AO%, and after the restored [n molgi of A it has room for another such dash and c.3 letters. If these dashes and letters are indeed meant to separate verses, then we should look for meter underlying B . The aj aga bai of Selinous 14 and Phalasarna 6, even though the aij of the Hesychian codex gives the first word some allure, is difficult, in both meter and sense (whom does the verb lanete address?). Does the O%D[1-2]PA from Himera now point to a different and perhaps sounder tradition? Or should we assume O% (lectional note) and a[]ga? Without aj, the opening words would sin less against the meter. Tetrago! or -ko! at the end of a verse is of course metrically impossible, and the ti d noma of Selinous 15 (and of Phalasarna 6 and Lokroi 3?) is problematic, but now we can easily see the origin of ti: a scribe must have had a model without h s or vs (cf. [k]t at Selinous 17 vs. the kt/ and kt of the other witnesses) and have assumed the article ti instead of the West Greek pronoun to . This means that in the texts from Selinous and possibly elsewhere we have a phrase with the West Greek pronoun followed by a very similar phrase with the Attic-Ionic. Is one offered as an alternative to the other? It may be significant then that the second phrase does not occur in the text from Himera. But the recognition of an alternative phrase, if this is what it is, does not solve the problem of the meter: the corruption is no doubt more radical, with the Selinuntine \HD[ c.11 ] tetroanar gete, itself impossible, presumably the remnant of a once better text. Verse D does scan, even if the Lokrian witness is no doubt more corrupt than I have assumed in my restoration of it. The faults from Himera, in any case, are instructive. The inscription is in an awkward hand, as if copied out slowly, with letters omitted and evidently misinterpreted. It is not clear whether the omissions were the scribes work or whether he simply copied what stood in the model, not his to
4 If, as I have assumed (Three texts, 100), the verses originally had a form hors dialecte, the loss of m , presumably

through a scribal error, would have occurred before the verses were converted to West Greek: our scribe would have been confronted with ONOA. 5 Three texts, 99. 6 Three texts, 97, n. 11.

Ephesia Grammata at Himera

107

reason why. The AKTA for k a t of Himera a 7, for example, evidently originated as a scribes miscopying, but comparison with the KTA in the same place in Phalasarna 17 suggests that the two mistakes are part of the same corruption. Similarly, the AMODA[ of Himera b1 and the maji(?)]dom of Lokroi 4 also suggest a common, corrupt source. The inscription from Himera shows that by the 5th century the original was old enough, and indeed had become widely enough disseminated, for its tradition already to have accumulated errors, many of them scribal.

Athens

David Jordan